Friday, March 25, 2016

Glossier Generation G Lipstick in Jam

Into the Gloss has been one of my daily reads for at least four years, but I'll be honest: I've never loved it wholeheartedly. In fact, it's probably that frisson of irritation that keeps me coming back day after day. Where else can you find an endless string of naturally stunning women claiming that they're "super low-maintenance" and "don't wear much makeup"? Or Shailene Woodley explaining that "clay is great for you because your body doesn’t absorb it, and it
apparently provides a negative charge, so it bonds to negative isotopes"? Or the obviously wealthy owner of an LA juice bar attributing its beginning to "God's grace" and not, you know, money? Or a French jewelry designer praising '70s-influenced makeup and adding in the next breath that eyeshadow is "so outdated" and shine on the lips is "not chic"? '70s Maybelline lady says what's up:

But for every article on "toxins" or no-makeup makeup or chakra-attuned rose-quartz dildos, there's a gorgeous makeup tutorial or an enlightening interview with a beauty-industry insider, and so ITG draws me back again.

The launch of Glossier in late 2014 marked a new phase in my ITG love/hate-reading. The website quickly metamorphosed into a Glossier advertorial, which didn't exactly surprise me (why shouldn't ITG promote its own products?) but, at least for a time, dampened my reading experience. As if by magic, almost all of ITG's interview subjects—even the people living in countries where Glossier was unavailable—began singing the praises of the Perfecting Skin Tint and Balm Dotcom. ITG has since admitted that they "send out complimentary products to people we cross paths with who are inspiring to us, so they can see if they like our brand." Again, not surprising, but I wish they'd been more transparent from the beginning. I was also put off by Glossier's emphasis on "effortless" beauty (a concept I've discussed in more depth here), especially after CEO Emily Weiss revealed her pre-wedding regimen of cleanses, colonics, and microcurrent
facials, all of which made her only "8/10 happy with how [she] looked." Kudos to her for being honest, but I wasn't the
only reader struck by the disconnect between her brand and her actual
lifestyle. If nothing else, it was a salutary reminder that the beauty industry is built on illusion.

Despite my skepticism, I couldn't deny that Glossier's branding was on point: emoji-style stickers, three-eyed smiley faces, and that signature shade of powder pink. Had I been the sort of person to try new skincare for the hell of it, I would probably have bought something from Phase 1, but I decided to wait for Glossier's makeup. It was a long time coming, but Phase 2 launched earlier this month. And Phase 2 contained lipstick. And in case you haven't noticed, I really like lipstick.

Glossier's Generation G lipsticks are meant to provide sheer but matte coverage for a "soft, popsicle-stained flush." They come in four colors: Cake, a beige; Like, a rosy pink; Crush, a raspberry; and Jam, a purple berry. Sheer lipstick is not my usual thing, but I do go through phases of wanting less-than-full-impact lip color, and I'm in one of those phases now. After watching the demo videos on the Glossier site, I felt myself drawn inexorably to Jam. I mentioned wanting it on Instagram, and guess what? Renee SENT ME ONE, along with the Glossier stickers and a tube of Balm Dotcom. I am truly #blessed. (She just reviewed Jam and Like, as well as Glossier's new Stretch Concealer, on her own blog. Check it out!)

I want to know the story behind that typeface. Also, my advisor signs
his emails with a period after his name (is that a British thing?), so
"Glossier." makes me think of receiving criticism on my dissertation chapters. Great.

Let's get the criticism out of the way first. There are two areas in which I think Generation G falls short (literally): size and packaging. First, these lipsticks are very pricey for their small size. Each Generation G is $18 for 0.04 oz, or 1.1 grams:

By contrast, a MAC lipstick ($17) is 0.1 oz, or 2.8 grams. That's right: 2.5 times larger than a Generation G at the same price point. The ColourPop Lippie Stix are about the same size as the Generation Gs (0.035 oz, or just under 1 gram), but they retail for $5. Now, there are lots of reasons why you might want to purchase a Generation G lipstick instead of a MAC or ColourPop: the sheer matte formula, the Glossier branding, a particular dislike for MAC or ColourPop, whatever. But you should know that though Glossier has mid-end pricing per unit, it has VERY high-end pricing per ounce. And because the sheerness of the lipstick means frequent reapplications, I can see myself reaching the bottom of this little tube quickly.

Second, the packaging. If I'm buying a lipstick that's $450 per ounce (no, seriously), I expect the tube to be both aesthetically pleasing and practical. The Generation G tube is mediocre in both respects. Yes, it has that minimalist Glossier sleekness and it snaps shut securely. But to my eyes, it looks more like a prototype than a finished product. Both the tube and the cap are actually translucent: you can see the bullet through the white plastic.

I'm kind of shocked that Glossier didn't put more effort into the packaging, given that the rest of its branding is so coherent. I'm all for beauty brands eliminating wasteful lipstick packaging (looking at you, Guerlain), but I doubt environmentalism was the motivating factor here.

The lipstick itself, though? Overall, I'm impressed. Jam applies smoothly and can be built up to near-opacity, though the texture of your lips will always be very apparent, for better or worse. Even at full strength, it doesn't do much to conceal flaws, but that also contributes to the breezy "natural" effect. Jam would qualify as an "unscented" lipstick, but I detect a very faint smell and taste that's halfway between herbal and plasticky, though not unpleasant. Here's one, two, and three coats of Jam on my (very dry, sorry!) lips:

Basically, Generation G has the visual effect but not the lipfeel of a stain. It's sheer and matte like a Korean lip tint (though with a slight sheen), but it's much less drying than a tint or stain. The tradeoff is that it doesn't last as long as a stain: in fact, it has the longevity of your average sheer lipstick. Jam feels comfortable on my lips (if slightly gummy when I press them together) and is neither drying nor moisturizing. Below, I've swatched Jam alongside two other sheer plummy things. L-R: Revlon Lip Butter in Sugar Plum, one coat of Jam, two coats of Jam, Revlon Balm Stain in Crush:

Jam and Crush are somewhat similar, but the Revlon Balm Stains are glossier (lol) and more opaque than the Generation Gs, at least when first applied. Crush fades to a bright pink, while Jam retains its color as it fades. It looks very vivid on some of the Glossier models, but it's a fairly muted plumberry on me. Jam is a nice spring plum, I think: not vampy or super-saturated. Below, I went for a Glossier-style messy-casual look: Maybelline Bad to the Bronze on my eyes, Illamasqua Zygomatic on my cheeks, and three coats of Jam on my lips.

Then I tied my hair back because it was hella frizzy:

Do I like Jam? Yes! Will I wear it often? Yes, it's a great throw-on-and-go lipstick. Is it worth $18? That's harder to answer, because I didn't spend my own money on it. I think the matte stain effect is cool and kind of sloppy-sexy (which is Glossier's whole thing, of course), but the packaging is not what I'd expect from an $18 lipstick, let alone one that would cost almost $50 if it were MAC-sized. I doubt I'll buy another Generation G, but that's mostly because Crush is very similar to Jam, while the two lighter shades don't look like they'd show up well on my lips. I'd give Jam a 3.5 out of 5: it's a decent product, but not quite as revolutionary as promised ("no lipstick in the history of lipsticks looks like this").

But even if Jam isn't revolutionary, Glossier is. It's one of those beauty brands that capture the pop-culture zeitgeist of an era, like Mary Quant in the '60s or Biba in the '70s or Bobbi Brown in the '90s. My mom still talks about the pastel Mary Quant lipsticks she wore in high school, and I suspect we'll still be talking about Glossier decades from now, and perhaps ColourPop in the same breath. Despite their superficial differences (no-makeup makeup vs. Instagram-tastic glitz, model endorsement vs. YouTube guru endorsement), both brands have harnessed social media for product development and publicity, and the results have been astonishing. Love them or hate them, Glossier, ColourPop, and other web-based brands are taking the beauty industry in new directions, and I'm curious to see what will happen next.

Oh, and let me mention the fate of the stickers. God, I love stickers. I still have my Sanrio sticker books from the mid-'90s, full of glittery, fuzzy, and iridescent stickers that I received from other kids during impassioned trading sessions. Glossier has tapped into that '90s-kid nostalgia with its own stickers, some of which I tried to put on my lipstick tube. They didn't stick (the tube was too narrow), so I moved them to flatter surfaces:

I also put a few on the back of my iPhone case, but I can't photograph that because I take all my pictures with my iPhone. My last name begins with G, so I was particularly happy to stick the G sticker to my phone. INSTANT MONOGRAM. Thanks, Glossier. And many thanks to Renee for her kindness! <3

34 comments:

Thank you for this timely review that nailed shut the coffin of my interest in Glossier! I HATE THEIR BRANDING. I'm also so wildly out of touch I did not know they were Into the Gloss's brand (how?? did I miss this?), though in my defense, I've visited Into the Gloss I think twice.

Excellent, thorough review. I hadn't done the math- this is one pricey product. And you're totally right, for the money they could have given us slightly nicer packaging. You really hit the nail on the head, too, with your assessment of the site in general. It used to be full of cool product reviews, interesting profiles, now every piece is either hawking their products, or some variation of "meet the team!" They are so in love with their team they seem to have forgotten what their team is there to do, that iis, to provide interesting content. Anyway, like a sucker I ordered the Phase 2 because lipstick. Will probably order Phase 3 too whatever "revolutionary" and hip thing it turns out to be.

Is it just me or are their team members all really attractive, to the point where it seems that they hire based on looks? It's like that Seinfeld episode in which Elaine goes into a restaurant and all the waitresses have huge boobs.

I hope my snark didn't overshadow my positive opinion of the lipstick! There's nothing wrong with being a sucker for lipstick, and this is a good one despite the weirdly cheap packaging.

I hate Topshop's white packaging because the matte texture attracts grime, but this tube is shiny enough to please me. As for the stickers, that thought crossed my mind as well, but I figure I can always remove the stickers somehow if they get dirty. And I almost never take that blush and highlighter out of the house, so.

So I think, wow, I should really try Into the Gloss again, because it's time I figured out this decade's zeitgeist. But the first thing I see is an article on Gwyneth Paltrow's beauty routine. BZZZT! Next!

Hahaha, I was referring more to Glossier's use of social media than to the actual content on ITG's website! I have zero interest in how Gwyneth Paltrow washes her face. There are some awesome interviews in the ITG archives, though; my favorite is Dita Von Teese, from a few years ago.

Your article is perfect on so many levels. You are so eloquent and everything you write is so detailed and thorough!! You are very talented and I don't mean that in a slimey way. I also read itg daily and I have the same sentiment as you. In fact, I've often voiced my annoyance in the comments under a pseudonym. Like that article on the crystal dildos. God that was so dumb. A whole lengthy description of the thing without mentioning if they actually tested it and liked it. I also pointed out under their article where they wanted to be "open" about their advertorials of glossier that they are, in fact, still not open about it and should just mention it if they send freebies to people. Yeah. They still don't. Anyway, I follow you on Instagram where I never post such lengthy and rambly comments (I live in Europe so I'm still in bed after all- barely awake. Take that as an excuse for my incoherent rambling) anyway I think the price point of this lipstick hybrid is a joke. Why note just take a berry lipstick and blott it down? Same effect, much cheaper too. There are so many great cheap lipsticks or lipstick and lipbalm hybrids. Just blott them down and they're matte and moisturising, revolutionary! (Rolls eyes). No seriously. Glossier annoys me even more than itg and does so on many levels. But yeah, I can't buy it in Europe so I guess I'll stay prejudiced for a little while longer

Aww, thank you!! You don't sound slimy at all. I started this blog largely as an escape from academic writing: in the academy it's easy to forget how to write things that more than 12 people might actually want to read. So it means a lot to me whenever someone says they enjoy my writing. :)

That article annoyed me, too. First, as you said, they still weren't totally transparent about how many freebies they send out and to whom. Second, a huge part of the article was a plea for readers to be nice to them in the comments, as if they haven't ALWAYS screened and edited comments very severely. I'm not going to insult the writers or anything, but I have no obligation to be super-nice to people who are trying to sell me something. ITG is no longer an independent blog; it's a business earning millions of dollars. I'm not merely a reader, I'm a potential customer. The dynamics are totally different.

Indeed re the comment section. That was the lamest thing ever. I also noticed that they sometimes sort of 'pic and choose' which comments they publish first. If you say something nice, you can bet it's going to get published quickly. Criticism or sarcasm is only published after more than 24 h (sometimes after days) (!!!!!) Because they know very well that beyond that point the conversation is likely to have died down. They've done that more than once with my comments. Also, extreme photoshopping in certain articles. (Take the Gwyneth paltrow one for instance).

Also, on another note. I find that Emily Weiss looks quite unhealthy in most of the pictures of her in articles on their website. So I guess the whole no-makeup and dieting and colonic cleansing stuff is not exactly working out for her. Just my honest opinion. Everyone in the comments section of itg always completely fawns over her but I wonder what others think about it.

Tom Ford Lips and Boys are $500/oz. Is Glossier's lipstick ANYWHERE near TF?! Come on ITG!!!! And you're right, it looks hella cheap, like something I would give to my daughter to play with at 13 except it costs $18, wtf.

I'm sorry, it was a lovely read and eloquent review, especially the snarky bits at the front (ITG has some lovely articles, my favourite was on Alexa Chung, but some people say absolutely batshit things as well.) I'm just really aghast the Glossier dares to sell this and people dare to buy it DDDD:

I think ITG/Glossier's branding is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. ITG has a lot of dedicated fans who will buy anything that Glossier releases, but it doesn't seem to be reaching beyond its existing fanbase, at least if the comments on this post are any indication.

I'd be a lot more upset about the price per ounce if I didn't have so many lipsticks already! It's not the smartest purchase for someone with a tiny collection who will go through the lipstick quickly, but for me it makes at least a little sense.

Do you have any of the Lips and Boys, btw? I was tempted by Theo, a purple (obviously), but couldn't justify buying it.

I do have Theo (and a few other Lips & Boys... took advantage of a $50 off $200 deal on neimanmarcus (still ouch) and I do love them. They go on easily, are really comfortable to wear, and come in some unusual colors, some of which are hard to dupe (my rationalization). They are not transfer-resistant, and many are not completely opaque (Theo isn't). This is fine with me, I like lipsticks that let my own lip color influence them and prefer sheer lipsticks to lip glosses, and I find that most lipsticks that are really transfer-resistant are not comfortable to wear on my extremely chap-prone lips. I'm also fine with the small size, because I've only ever completely used up two full-sized lipsticks, and have a large collection that makes it difficult to use up even my favorites.

So, they're easy to apply and comfortable to wear. If that's what you like, and there's a color that you're really drawn to, it just might be worth a try.

If you want transfer-resistant and 100% opaque in all shades, Lips & Boys might not be the formula for you. It's also not worth the higher price to me if I can find a very similar color and finish in another formula that's easy to apply and comfortable to wear, but more reasonably priced.

I do love Theo. And Stavros. And Egon. And Pablo. And Giacomo. And Joaquin. Theo, Stavros, and Egon being the most unusual/hard to dupe. It's a formula that's pretty consitent, at least across the shades I've tried -- if you love or hate one, I think you're likely to love or hate them all.

I hit sign out instead of publish :( ITG used to have a greater ratio of interviews with inspiring people to woo-filled articles (I totally missed the crystal dildo piece) but now, especially since they've expanded their editorial team, it reads more like your average magazine site than the blog I used to love.

I can't get on board with these "lipsticks"! I have too many sheer and tinted formulas already, not to mention you can achieve a similar effect blotting down. I am keen to check out the boy brow, if only for comparison purposes, as well as the stretch concealer (which, what?! What makeup product doesn't move with your face?) - but then I do love a base product.

I've still yet to use more than a couple of the stickers because Im being too precious about them, just like I was in the nineties :D

Yeah, the tone of the website has definitely changed in the last two years. I remember that Nick, one of the co-founders, left just before the launch of Glossier. They've also cut down on the number of posts they run per day (which makes their frequent errors and misspellings all the more egregious, tbh).

Confession: I'd rather buy a sheer lipstick than blot down an opaque one. I know that makes NO SENSE, especially no financial sense, but I have this thing about wearing all my lipsticks as they're "meant to be worn." And "Stretch Concealer" is such a weird name: for me, it conjures up the image of Silly Putty, which is clearly not what they were going for. I suppose I should be thankful that I find base products boring and never buy more than I absolutely need!

I really enjoyed re-reading your post about 'effortless' beauty, along with the comments and replies :-)Thanks for explaining about the stickers. I didn't get it -- being from the wrong generation, lol, and my son for some reason not having been into the stickers.I like a sheer lipstick in the spring, but not so crazy about the matte look. If the stain effect lasted all day, through meals, then I'd say this lipstick might be worth its price.I'm not much into packaging (although I do like functional, sleek, and not too heavy), but this lipstick tube is especially awful (even though it's functional, sleek, and looks like it's not heavy). It just looks really cheap.Love your posts :-)

The sticker mania got so out of hand in my elementary school that my teachers had to ban sticker trading! But the damage was done: we'd all turned into shrewd little capitalists. I remember that my mom would never buy me the most coveted stickers, known as "oilies": they had an oily iridescent finish that would change color when you touched them. They were also the most expensive, of course, and my mom couldn't countenance spending more than a couple of dollars on stickers. In retrospect, she was absolutely right.

I really like the sheer matte look, at least for a change of pace. And I wonder why Glossier didn't make the tubes black? Then at least you wouldn't be able to see the lipstick bullet through them...

Thanks for all the info! And to think, all this time I hadn't once thought about my negative isotopes or asked a cab driver, "Will you tell me about your customs?" I guess I should start reading ITG. I've never been able to get into (ha) it, but maybe I am just a little too old (right in that sweet spot where millennial and gen X and Y all apparently intersect). I also admit that I don't understand what is interesting about the packaging design, but maybe you have to see it in person. And thank you for the pricing breakdown, because HOLY FUCK. I do like a sheer stain, but I think I can get a similar effect I like as much using Revlon balm stains or TheBalm Stainiac, even if they are different sorts of products.

Also, I think the name of the brand would be cooler if it were pronounced like "more glossy" instead of faux French. Is it supposed to be some kind of pun on "dossier"? Apparently I have a lot of thoughts about this company . . .

I remember that ITG's readership used to skew a bit older than it does now, but after the launch of Glossier the site seemed to care more about teens and early-20s women. By the way, is "Gen Y" still a thing? I think it should be, but I don't hear it talked about anymore. Last I heard, millennials were people born in 1980 and after, but that seems wrong to me. I was born in late 1987 and didn't have my own computer or cell phone until I went to college in 2005, and the whole social-media explosion happened just after I graduated. With the exception of Facebook, I've always felt slightly too old for every new social-media platform, and I haven't even bothered with Snapchat or Yik Yak or whatever the kids are using these days.

I was so pissed off when I learned that "Glossier" was pronounced to rhyme with "dossier"! The other pronunciation would make so much more sense, given the ITG connection. I don't know why they decided to be faux-French, though they've always advocated that elusive (and illusive) "French-girl beauty," so I guess why not.

I was completely baffled by the pronunciation of "glossier" and in my head I still pronounce it as *more glossy* because I really and sincerely hate the way Emily pronounced it in of their videos. Also, there's nothing elusive or illusive to the French girl beauty thing and I live close enough to Paris to know. It's just plain old boring, everyone wears the same stuff and no makeup. If you're not white, very slim, at least average height and have long straight/wavy hair, forget it, you'll never live up to be French girl. I am so sick and tired of websites like itg promoting this kind of BS non-existing style. Pardon my French.

It took me the longest time to figure out that Glossier = Into the Gloss. Probably because Glossier won't ship to me, and I have enacted a new "if you don't feel like you want to sell to Canada at any point, I'm not ever giving you my money" policy because there are plenty of brands that are perfectly willing to sell here and so I don't have the interest to put up with that anymore.

I'm not into the aesthetic of Glossier, though the sheer lipstick intrigues me. But at that price alone...nah. Jam does look lovely, though!

I think that's a fine policy to have! ITG has explained why they can't ship internationally, but I don't remember the explanation making much sense. I think it's a little weird that the brand has existed for a year and a half and still hasn't sorted out Canadian shipping.

I hate that I'm into the Glossier aesthetic, but I totally am. Part of me wants to go completely vegan and do yoga every morning and spend two minutes a day on makeup...and then I remember that ice cream is delicious.

Oh honey no. Why give up on all the good things in live. Everything in moderation of course but why never have dairy or do about nothing with your makeup. Come on. Don't start publishing vegan smoothies with chia seed and home made nut butter layered perfectly in a jar on your Instagram. Is that really the type of person you'd like to be? Please ��

I've yet to see a really good explanation for not shipping within North America from a company, aside from things like nail polish or alcohol-base fragrance companies. Most of the time it actually means "we can't be arsed to to figure out how blah blah blah." Yawn.

Occasionally I think I might become a crunchy vegan, yoga doing person - I do tend to relate what spirituality I practice to nature, but the I remember nothing else in my life is conducive to it so I drop the idea. I currently don't live in a very vegan-friendly place, for example, so even the few vegan dishes I like to make are nearly impossible. Though my MIL and I managed to make a vegan chocolate mousse last night and it was excellent. Probably the fact that it has three ingredients made it easier to find them!

Most of the Glossier makeup products confuse me, but I guess the extremely natural no-makeup makeup thing is not really up my alley. I feel like it's all made for people who are already flawless and don't need any makeup to be considered the definition of beautiful, if such a person actually exists. ITG in general bores me, overall. They have some cool stuff sometimes, but every time I think I'll give it a chance I'm just like "... okay." Jam does look like a really great no-fuss product, but at that price per ounce... AHHH.

The Glossier skincare products have never really appealed to me, though I'm interested in the Perfecting Skin Tint (I've never worn foundation or tinted moisturizer, but I'd like to try something very sheer). The no-makeup makeup thing isn't for me, either. Some days I try to do a pared-down, nearly invisible look, but then I'm always like "nah, needs more lipstick."

Even though I really hate that semi-condescending "no makeup-makeup" jargon I was finding myself unnervingly drawn to glossier's phase 2 stuff. When I first saw it I thought "ok not my thing", and a week later I'm desperately searching for anyone selling it on ebay internationally. This was a nice reminder to snap out of it. Even though at the 5$ price point it's completely understandable how small the coloupop lippie stix are, I was still a little disappointed in the size, so I would have been livid (with myself) if I had bought one of the generation g lipsticks.

Yeah, I don't think the Generation G lipsticks are worth hunting down on ebay! $18 is already too pricey for the amount you get, never mind the extra money you'd have to pay to buy it from a middleman. I've been enjoying Jam, but I've also been going through it noticeably quickly, and I've worn it for just three days! $5 is an acceptable price for a deluxe-sample size; $18 is just not.

I'll admit I've been a long-time ITG reader, although less avid now with the recent changes in editorial content. I'm also a fan of Glossier's products. I have no interest in their lip products (that stain reminds me of Korres' lip butters), but I love their cleanser and masks. I think my major issue with their products is that they're designed for people who Already Have Good Skin. As a post-Accutane girl, I love the products. They're not strong, not heavy, and perfect for my blemish-free combination skin. But the second I start getting spots again (please God no), I'm gonna have to look elsewhere.

The no international shipping thing confuses me too. I'm Aussie-based, and hence get my products through regular travel to the U.S. Perhaps they do not have the manpower to create the volume of stock required to go global. After all, the prices SEEM cheap...

If you have as many lipsticks as I do (between 50 and 55...), the price per ounce really isn't as important as the price per unit. But if a Generation G is, like, only your fifth lipstick, you're going to run through it in no time.

I just started using one of the Mega Greens Galaxy Pack pods and I'm really liking it--I might end up buying the full size, actually. But I also have good skin overall (minus the hormonal breakouts once a month, ugh). If I had serious skin problems, I'd be annoyed at Glossier's obvious catering to people with decent skin. Same thing with the Boy Brow: I have naturally thick brows, so I'm tempted to buy it, but I've heard that it's useless for people with thinner or lighter brows. Is a brand all that impressive if it works only for the people in least need of its products?

If beauty blogging has taught me one thing, it's that we Americans are incredibly spoiled with product availability and pricing!